The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-08-13
THE RESPONSIBILITY.

The officers of the Toledo, Peoria & West
ern road are laying foundation for defense
against responsibility for the recent terrible
accident. They need it. The first conclusion
of the public, that the accident was due to
criminal carelessness and reckless manage
ment. was so obviously just that the respon-
sible officers of the road see the necessity of
fortifying against it. They are unanimously
of the opinion that the accident was caused
by the burning of the wooden bridge, or
trestle, and that this could not have been pre-
vented or avoided. The conclusion they
would like to have drawn is that they are in
no wise to blame. They advance two theories
to the origin of the supposed fre--one that
the bridge was fired by wreckers and robbers
for the purpose of plumber, and the other that
it caught fire from burning grass accidentally
ignited by a passing train. We take no stock
in either of these theories. That the bridge
fired by wreckers for plumber is prepos-
ferrous. Everybody knows that excursionists
do not carry much money. There was no
express or mail car on the train carrying val
uables. That there may have been some
pickpockets on board is quite likely but that
robbers should attempt to wreck such train
in such a way is simply incredible The sug-
gestion is not worth second thought. Equally
improbable is it that the bridge was fired by
burning grass. The evidence before the
coroner's jury shows that the bridge was ex-
amined about 5 o'clock Wednesday evening,
train crossed the bridge after that hour be-
fore the fatal excursion train. The grass
along the sides of the road had been burned
off week ago, and there was little or nothing
to feed a fire. Neither of these theories
started by the officers of the road is reasona-
BILE or credible. In opinion, the bridge
was not burned, and the only fire in the case
was caused by the wrecking of the train.
The accident was due to other causes. Even
if the bridge had been burned, that would
not excuse the management of the road,
whose business it was to guard against just
such contingencies. But we believe thor
ough investigation will show the bridge
not burned. 1t simply weak wooden |
structure, incapable of bearing the shock of |
this tremendous train under full speed, and |
when the strain came it gave way. The |
criminal carelessness was in the making up of |
the train, in running it at such q rate of
speed, and in hurting double weighted train
with two locomotives on to a wooden trestle
which, if the management of the road knew
anything. they ought to have known could.
not stand the strain. The evidence shows
that before leaving Peoria the engineer OBJ
jected to making up the train in that way,
with sixteen cars and two locomotives, but
Armstrong paid no attention
to him. Superintendent Armstrong should
be given an opportunity to explain this in
court of justice. The facts show that the
first locomotive got across safely. The Sec
ond was much the heavier of the two, and it
was the shock of this one, laundering on the
trestle from down grade at the rate of forty
Or fifty miles hour, that crushed the
bridge. There is no need to talk about train
wreckers or fire; the reckless management of
the road accounts for the disaster.